Slashdot Mirror
Update on Playfair
An anonymous reader writes "A few weeks back, Slashdot reported that Apple had sent a cease and desist letter to Sarovar.org, the Indian site hosting the Playfair project. This is the first incident in India where a corporation has used legal means to shut down a Free Software project. Some of the prominent members of the Open Source/Free Software community in India have issued an update on this situation. There is also an interesting post in the FSF-India mailing lists."
I'm sure that the move is a pre-emptive measure from Apple to keep the RIAA off their back and to keep iTunes from being accused of as some sort of means for piracy.
More likely, though, the RIAA is hopping mad with anger and is pounding on Apple's doors asking what they plan on doing about this.
Most likely, I think, is that Apple's run by a bunch of litigious bastards that see that it's possible to lose a dime because of this software and hence, it must be stopped.
I, of course, have no idea what I'm talking about, though, and these are but mere speculations being made way too early in the day and without the aid of caffeine.
1. You explicitly indicated that you had read entirely and agreed to the contract when you bought the music (or seeing as you're European (me too) whoever bought the music).
2. You knew of the quality of the recordings before you bought the music (or at least this information was made freely available by Apple).
People of your viewpoint have *no* *fucking* *leg* *to* *stand* *on*.
Sorry to be harsh, but it really is as simple as that.
This sig has been deprecated.
Tho the hell modded the parent up???
It is wrong on so many levels, I don't even know where to begin.
> Since more AAC is more better, but there's a quote in the linked article I think is relevant:
>
> | Apple has stated that PlayFair contravenes the Indian Copyright
> | Act. 1957 and the IT Act, 2002, but have not specified how these acts
> | are violated. While these acts make the unauthorized copying of music
> | illegal, they nowhere bar the creation of tools that could potentially
> | be used to illegally copy music. Trying to stop dissemination of a
> | tool that permits legal licensees of songs from iTunes to play them on
> | non Apple-authorized hardware is purely a business loss prevention
> | strategy from Apple and must be deplored.
I have taken the liberty to bold some words in the paragraph that you quoted to help your reading comprehension.
> So they acknowledge that the unauthorized copying of music is illegal, and
> believe a tool that makes an unauthorized copy of the music is not illegal?
Hmmm... difficult case indeed. Let's try some analogies:
Stabbing people is illegal, knives are not.
Shooting people is illegal, guns are not (at least in the US).
Rape is illegal, penises are not.
Get it now?
> Because as the author states, Apple already provides a means to permit legal
> licensees of songs from iTunes to play on non Apple authorized hardware via
> CD burning (and subsequent re-ripping). This is *authorized* copying.
> Anything else, then, is unauthorized copying isn't it?
It isn't. The method of copying has nothing to do with it.
> Doing a clean decryption of the AAC file would certainly fall into unauthorized copying, according to the terms of use, I think.
Think again.
> So FairPlay's only legal defense is that it isn't illegal to write such a tool, only illegal to use such a tool...
No, the legal defence is that it is illegal to use such a tool (or any tool) for illegal purposes (such as unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material) but it has significant non-infringing uses.
And if that defence is not good enough for you, you should be incarcerated for posessing a tool that can be used for rape.